linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] block: Rework bio_pair

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:09:44 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
	neilb@...e.de, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	mpatocka@...hat.com, sage@...dream.net, yehuda@...newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] block: Rework bio_pair_split()

Hello,

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This changes bio_pair_split() to use the new bio_split() underneath,
> which gets rid of the single page bio limitation. The various callers
> are fixed up for the slightly different struct bio_pair, and to remove
> the unnecessary checks.
> 
> v5: Move extern declaration to proper patch, per Boaz

I don't get this.  Why can't bio_split() chain the split to the
original one thus make bio_pair unnecessary?  It's not like completing
the split bio with the same end_io ever makes sense.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/